100729_Clarifier2

The United States and South Korea have just wrapped up a four-day naval exercise in the Sea of Japan in response to the March 27 North Korean torpedo attack on the South Korean warship Cheonan. Crikey asked Craig Snyder, from Deakin University, to give an assessment of the effectiveness of the military exercises and to provide an update on the latest tensions over North Korea.

What effect do you see the naval exercise in deterring future North Korean attacks on the South?

Ultimately, the exercises will have no real effect as a deterrent against future attacks. While they did focus on improving the South Korean’s anti-submarine warfare capabilities, the South Korean Navy would already be on a much higher alert status when putting to sea following the attack in March.  The North Korean attack succeeded because of the surprise nature of the attack, should they want to attack again then they would most likely choose another means to attack.

The North threatened to respond to the exercise with nuclear deterrence.  What was the likelihood of such a response?

Any threat by the North of a nuclear strike is very much a hollow threat.  Not only are we uncertain whether the North Koreans have the capability of conducting a third nuclear test, they are a long way away from being able to make an actual nuclear bomb.  It is one thing to conduct a test in a static position such as in a lab, it is quite another to make in a form that can be added to a weapon.

How successful do you see the exercise in influencing North Korean behaviour?

It is always too early to claim success against North Korea.  We are even uncertain as to who is in control in North Korea.  Reports earlier in the week that a large bronze statue of Kim Jong Il has been unveiled implies that Kim has either handed over (or is preparing to hand over) power to his son Kim Jong Un, or has been removed from power.  This is because Confucianism does not allow a leader to erect statues to themselves.  You can do this for former leaders but not for oneself.  Mind you this is not the first time external pundits have announced Kim’s demise!

Could the exercises fail, that is could this be used as a justification by North Korea to accelerate its nuclear weapons program?

No, what the exercise does is it sends a very strong signal to the North Koreans that the US is serious about its commitments to the security of South Korea.  Exercises such as this, while they increase the ability of the two navies in their interoperability, most importantly they send signals to not only the North Koreans but also others in the region that the US is serious about its leadership in the region.

Has the US been too aggressive in this “sabre-rattling”?  Were there alternatives that they could have taken that would have been less provocative?  Should the Americans have tried harder to get China to reign in North Korea?

This is not the only response the US or the South Koreans have taken.  First, the South Koreans invited international experts to investigate the sinking of the Cheonan, including Australian experts giving greater credibility to the findings of the investigation. Both have also increased sanctions on the North following the attacks and also ensured a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the attack (although the resolution did fall short of actually blaming the North Koreans).

In June the US also leaked news of a revised Korean Peninsula war strategy where the US would use its technological advantage over the North Korean military to bypass the de-militarised zone (DMZ) and strike directly at the North Korean capital, Pyongyang. As for the Chinese, I don’t think the US needs to put pressure on them to try to rein in North Korea.  The Chinese do not want to see this escalate, nor do they want to see North Korea collapse.  China’s biggest fear in the Peninsula is for a mass migration of refugees along the China-North Korean border.

What about a long-term solution?  Is there any chance of a resumption of the six-nation talks?  Are there any implications for other tensions in the region?

There is very little chance that these talks will resume in the short term.  The US ultimately wants them re-started as indeed may the Chinese as they may start to feel isolated on the issue and may want to get a diplomatic success in the region.  The Chinese will be most concerned about the renewed US activity in the region.  Hillary Clinton’s recent trip through Asia has seen the US take a much more aggressive role in seeking to ensure continued American naval access to the waters in and around Asia.  Here the US is responding to pressure by China to restrict US Navy access to waters off the Chinese coast, a move that would seriously impede the American’s ability to work with its Asian friends and allies.